releasing version 3.20091023

[git.ikiwiki.info.git] / doc / plugins / contrib / album / discussion.mdwn

diff --git a/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn b/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn
index 156cd7ad8b861baeaf115d573ae86599ea0f3ac6..9720589b46cf4c488a552b4c4678cddf160274d2 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn
+++ b/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]]
 * Needing to create the albumimage "viewer" pages for each photo
   seems like it will become a pain. Everyone will need to come up
   with their own automation for it, and then there's the question
 * Needing to create the albumimage "viewer" pages for each photo
   seems like it will become a pain. Everyone will need to come up
   with their own automation for it, and then there's the question

-  of how to automate it when uploading attachments.
+  of how to automate it when uploading attachments. -J

 
 > There's already a script (ikiwiki-album) to populate a git
 > checkout with skeleton "viewer" pages; I was planning to make a
 
 > There's already a script (ikiwiki-album) to populate a git
 > checkout with skeleton "viewer" pages; I was planning to make a


@@ -69,11 +69,20 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]]
 > on the implementation). I agree that this is ugly, though. -s
 
 >> Would you accept a version where the albumimage "viewer" pages
 > on the implementation). I agree that this is ugly, though. -s
 
 >> Would you accept a version where the albumimage "viewer" pages

->> could be 0 bytes long, at least until metadata gets added? -s
+>> could be 0 bytes long, at least until metadata gets added?
+>>
+>> The more I think about the "binaries as first-class pages" approach,
+>> the more subtle interactions I notice with other plugins. I
+>> think I'm up to needing changes to editpage, comments, attachment
+>> and recentchanges, plus adjustments to img and Render (to reduce
+>> duplication when thumbnailing an image with a strange extension
+>> while simultaneously changing the extension, and to hardlink/copy
+>> an image with a strange extension to a differing target filename
+>> with the normal extension, respectively). -s

 
 * With each viewer page having next/prev links, I can see how you
   were having the scalability issues with ikiwiki's data structures
 
 * With each viewer page having next/prev links, I can see how you
   were having the scalability issues with ikiwiki's data structures

-  earlier!
+  earlier! -J

 
 > Yeah, I think they're a basic requirement from a UI point of view
 > though (although they don't necessarily have to be full wikilinks).
 
 > Yeah, I think they're a basic requirement from a UI point of view
 > though (although they don't necessarily have to be full wikilinks).


@@ -88,7 +97,7 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]]
 * And doesn't each viewer page really depend on every other page in the
   same albumsection? If a new page is added, the next/prev links
   may need to be updated, for example. If so, there will be much
 * And doesn't each viewer page really depend on every other page in the
   same albumsection? If a new page is added, the next/prev links
   may need to be updated, for example. If so, there will be much

-  unnecessary rebuilding.
+  unnecessary rebuilding. -J

 
 > albumsections are just a way to insert headings into the flow of
 > photos, so they don't actually affect dependencies.
 
 > albumsections are just a way to insert headings into the flow of
 > photos, so they don't actually affect dependencies.


@@ -117,7 +126,7 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]]
 >>> have no idea what it depends on until the rebuild phase. -s
 
 * One thing I do like about having individual pages per image is
 >>> have no idea what it depends on until the rebuild phase. -s
 
 * One thing I do like about having individual pages per image is

-  that they can each have their own comments, etc.
+  that they can each have their own comments, etc. -J

 
 > Yes; also, they can be wikilinked. I consider those to be
 > UI requirements. -s
 
 > Yes; also, they can be wikilinked. I consider those to be
 > UI requirements. -s


@@ -127,7 +136,7 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]]
   album, but then anyone who can write to any other page on the wiki can
   add an image to it. 2: I may want an image to appear in more than one
   album. Think tags. So it seems it would be better to have the album
   album, but then anyone who can write to any other page on the wiki can
   add an image to it. 2: I may want an image to appear in more than one
   album. Think tags. So it seems it would be better to have the album

-  directive control what pages it includes (a la inline).
+  directive control what pages it includes (a la inline). -J

 
 > I'm inclined to fix this by constraining images to be subpages of exactly
 > one album: if they're subpages of 2+ nested albums then they're only
 
 > I'm inclined to fix this by constraining images to be subpages of exactly
 > one album: if they're subpages of 2+ nested albums then they're only


@@ -156,7 +165,7 @@ code or tried it yet, but here goes. --[[Joey]]
   etc. (Real pity we can't just put arbitrary metadata into the images
   themselves.) This is almost pointing toward making the images first-class
   wiki page sources. Hey, it worked for po! :) But the metadata and editing
   etc. (Real pity we can't just put arbitrary metadata into the images
   themselves.) This is almost pointing toward making the images first-class
   wiki page sources. Hey, it worked for po! :) But the metadata and editing

-  problems probably don't really allow that.
+  problems probably don't really allow that. -J

 
 > Putting a JPEG in the web form is not an option from my point of
 > view :-) but perhaps there could just be a "web-editable" flag supplied
 
 > Putting a JPEG in the web form is not an option from my point of
 > view :-) but perhaps there could just be a "web-editable" flag supplied


@@ -350,6 +359,10 @@ underlay, so that photos don't have to be in your source-code control
 > Replying to myself: perhaps best done as an orthogonal extension
 > to attach? -s
 
 > Replying to myself: perhaps best done as an orthogonal extension
 > to attach? -s
 

+> Yet another non-obvious thing this design would need to do is to find
+> some way to have each change to memes/badger._albummeta show up as a
+> change to memes/badger in `recentchanges`. -s
+

 Things that would be nice, and are probably possible:
 
 * make the "Edit page" link on viewers divert to album-specific CGI instead
 Things that would be nice, and are probably possible:
 
 * make the "Edit page" link on viewers divert to album-specific CGI instead